Note: A version of this post originally ran as an Indianapolis Business Journal Forefront column. Generally, I refrained from posting columns of mine published in Forefront, but I particularly like this one and wanted to share.
In 1854, the Indiana Democratic Party was led by a man named Jesse Bright, a man described as “hateful and extraordinarily ambitious.” He rose to power as a bully and apparently remained one thereafter. His pugnaciousness was no small part of the series of events that led to a two year period in which Indiana had only one U.S. Senator instead of the customary two. At the time, the General Assembly was responsible for choosing U.S. Senators. However, in 1854, a backlash rose against passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, an act that permitted slavery in states north of the Mason-Dixon line. Bright, himself a slave owner with holdings in Kentucky, pushed a state party platform that endorsed the Act. This was not popular with all Democrats, but Bright and his machinery punished those who opposed it, driving a wedge in the state Democratic party and giving rise to a confederation of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Know-Nothings, and dissident Democrats who joined into a fusion movement that swept the elections that year. They took control of the House of Representatives, but the Democrats narrowly hung on to the state Senate.
The first order of business for the new General Assembly was selecting a United States Senator. However, rather than permitting the choice of a Fusionist, the Democrats refused to caucus. As a consequence, from 1855-1857, Jesse Bright was Indiana’s lone Senator. In 1862, the United States Senate would go on to expel him from the Senate for acknowledging Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederate States of America and for facilitating the sale of arms to the Confederacy.
Dysfunction and machine politics were not unique to the Indiana Senate selection process. In 1906, Hoosier native and DePauw graduate, David Graham Phillips wrote a series of articles entitled “The Treason of the Senate” which played no small part in the eventual passage of the Seventeenth Amendment providing for the direct election, as opposed to legislative selection, of United States Senators. As the industrial might of the country grew in the post-Civil War era, those with major business interests came to understand that they could best exert their influence on the U.S. Senate by offering financial incentives to the state legislators who selected its members. Phillips documented some of these abuses, for example the close alignment between the Rockefellers and the political machine of Rhode Island’s Nelson Aldrich. Rhode Island’s legislature and, therefore, its two Senate seats could be had at very little expense.
Following popular anger at the dysfunction and abuse of the legislative selection system, the United States passed the Seventeenth Amendment, removing the selection process from frequently corruptible legislatures and providing for direct election of our Senators.
Now, however, Indiana officials, including state senator James Smith (R-Charlestown) and Indiana’s Attorney General, Gregory Zoeller have advocated repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Earlier this year, Smith introduced legislation proposing to take the legally dubious step of rescinding Indiana’s ratification of that Amendment. Zoeller recently expressed his distaste for popular election of Senators at a meeting of the Federalist Society. The old way, he contends, was better because it made Senators instruments of the State rather than instruments of the people, thereby enhancing our federalist form of government with the States themselves being represented in Congress.
My high school history teacher told us that “today’s reforms are tomorrow’s corruption.” And our current U.S. Senate certainly is not a model organization. However, trading in today’s abuses for yesterday’s corruption is not the way to go about reform. If the state legislatures are at odds with the popular will, the solution is not to neuter the will of the People. More likely the solution is to change the composition of the legislature.
When Mr. Zoeller runs for re-election, I think that it needs to be plainly stated, among his other “achievements” that he advocates the election of Senators be taken from the people and given to the legislature. Even Hoosiers will get that message.
I guess it’s not enough that they are able to Gerrymander the election of the members of the House. They want the whole package.
exactly. one more attempt at creating a veto point between the people and policy. Greg Zoeller and his terrible mustache are anti-democratic
Perhaps you’re right. Perhaps it’s time to outright abolish the Senate.
I’m for it. Unicameral all the way, like most real democracies with, of course, equal and fair voting districts.
Your people, freedom, would never elect even a dog catcher in that system
I have “people?”
Yet another item in the very, very long list of Republican efforts to silence the voice of the people.
Give them some credit – they don’t want to silence everyone, just the voice of people who don’t agree with them.
I can’t figure out which hurts democracy more – the primary system, gerrymandering, or the recent campaign finance SCOTUS cases.
It’s all part and parcel, but I think it’s the money, followed by the gerrymandering. Although, when one party wins a million more votes in an election than the other and the second one still easily wins the chamber, there’s a strong argument made for gerrymandering
I’m going for gerrymandering. While money can influence/bribe/corrupt/whatever at least there is a chance for either side to win. With gerrymandering there is often no way for one side to win which is why the focus become on who wins the primary and not the election.
What Zoeller means is that the Senators would be instruments of extremists such as Governor Pence and the Tea-Party. One has to wonder how large of a financial incentive he and Senator Smith have been offered.
the Big Z wants to follow Pence into the Statehouse and the way to do that is to pander to nuts with money and scared, old white people
It seems like there’s been an uptick in conservatives self-labeling as “federalists”. I find this somewhat amusing, since they’re not likely to be fond of the policies of the Adams/Hamilton federalists. “Confederalist” is probably a better term (were it a word), but the association of “confederate” with “treasonous rebellion by southern states” probably makes that a non-starter.
Well, right. The federalists, like Hamilton, were advocates for a strong federal government. Most self-described federalists currently are advocating for a weak federal government. But, for many, the zeal for limited government seems to be contingent on who currently occupies the offices of that government.
I can give the websites for people who state — unequivocally — that the South was right and , of course, they hate slavery and all, but the poor dears would have to fend for themselves for awhile until the South abolished slavery. Which, everyone knows, was right around the corner (the secession from the Union to defend slavery notwithstanding).
Hell, Freedom is probably an active contributor to any one of them
“Federalist” does not mean “national government,” and “federal” does not mean “national.” Federalism and federal refer to a system of government in which each branch and rank has specific jurisdiction and operates independently of the other ranks and branches. In the American federalist system, the national government, the state government and the People are all independent levels of government, with the People being supreme.
Over time, people forget the proper definition of words.
“Over time, people forget the proper definition of words.” Which is whatever reactionaries say it meant 250+ years ago
You have a definition from the 18th Century that states that “federal” means a single central government?